Korean Job Discussion Forums

[HyperPatriot]

"According to the World Health Organization's opinion, Canada ranks no. 30 and the United States no. 37."



Again, none of this "ratings" stuff matter unless you are someone who relies EXCLUSIVELY on the government for all your needs.

In a country where the majority of people are poor and the rich are so vastly wealthy that they can be stolen from wholesale without scaring them away in order to provide for the poor -- then Socialism makes sense from a DEMOCRATIC standpoint. Such a nation might be Cuba, or countries like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, which have oil revenues. Since the oil barons can't run away, they have to operate in their countries, they have to deal with the tax -- its a fact of life -- you can't have everything, because Power, Money, Influence work their magic the same as raw Force.


That being said, in Nations that actually have a Middle Class, and which are highly MOBILE (re: their wealthy people can move to any country in the world, or set up companies in any country in the world -- not having to be tied to any particular one) -- then Socialism does not make sense.

The United States is such a country.



HOWEVER THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE U.S. has got it RIGHT.


Our Health Care system has been so badly corrupted by the POLITICIANS that it doesn't even look like a Private System whatsoever.

The U.S. Medical system is the best for the rich, because where the rich are concerned its nearly 100% Capitalistic and Free Market.



However, where the Poor and Lower Middle Class are concerned, its a bunch of bureaucratic nightmares, and completely poorly written laws.

That being said -- the OVERALL system still generates more WEALTH for Americans, on average, than, say Canada.

Because of this, we can LITERALLY afford 2 Medical Systems.



The problem is that the way the laws work, citizens CANNOT overwrite the system that they are locked into -- in some ways this is WORSE than the Canadian system. And for the wealthy it is BETTER.

All systems have their flaws. Obviously, Canada's is the moral issue of it being out-right theft, being inefficient, and long waits.


For the United States, its the moral issue that the poor are almost completely disenfranchized by a PSUEDO-capitalistic oligarchy made of prohibitively expensive to challenge regulations.. and a system of out-right immorality whereby rejection of help is considered Bonus-worthy, the way that insurance companies are allowed to operate.

Its not theft, because its contract based -- but its HIGHLY immoral because there are no real options, just slight variations on the same themes.




So i APPLAUD Canada for what they can do for their poor and lower middle class -- although i recognize that it is outright theft against their upper middle class and wealthy.


And i DENOUNCE the Corporate LOBBY in Washington DC, which has turned what is a GREAT system for the Upper Middle Class and Wealthy, into an utter nightmare for the Lower Middle Class and the Poor in the United States.



Again -- pick your poison.

I wish either could get it right.



According to Michael Moore (and i dont quote him often) -- look to France. Supposedly they have a vastly superior system (im talking system as in -way- it works) to Canada, although i dont know enough about it to know what market-based solutions might make it even better.

Surely, however, there is something better than either the U.S. or Canada.


And just because i am against Socialism in principle and regard Socialists as thieves -- does NOT mean that i don't think they get the job done sometimes -- and that sometimes they do it better than the market.

However, Health is NOT a "problem of the commons".

And there are solutions, if only we had Political leaders who were educated enough to get their minds around the problems to begin with -- and who were untouchable enough not to buy into the Lobbies.

Sadly, its not the case in today's America. Its something that i fight for, however.


[Patriot]

[cosmicgirlie]

[crusher_of_heads]

Canada is better off having an unoffical two tier system-in most of the country, especially in Socialist Wonerland Quebec, you can jump the queue and pay for an MRI to be done.

The sheep are welcome to wait, recite the Joe Canadian rant and hope for the best.

[Adventurer]

[Matt_22]

you don't have to be rich to get excellent medical care in america. the american system has it's flaws, but it still works wonderfully for well over 100 million people, and it has an abundance of the most highly trained specialists in the world. the problem is that a tens of millions don't have insurance, and many insurers are bilking people out of expensive treatments. it also is completely reactionary rather than preventative medicine. still, for the average middle-class person, it's honestly pretty good.

[Gopher]

[Adventurer]

[quote="Gopher"]

[khyber]

Anyone know how the french system is organize?

[Gopher]

[kreitler7]

Hey Adventurer,

There is a private clinic in Vancouver where anybody can get surgery for a fee. It probably would be a cheaper option than paying in the states. Check it out at
http://www.csc-surgery.com/

[Adventurer]

[crusher_of_heads]

The best way to improve American healthcare is preventative medicine-it's time for Michael Moore, who is disgusting and obese, to lose a lot of weight and not be a drag on productive medical professionals.

[congee]

[crusher_of_heads]

[Fresh Prince]

I once read a story about the caste system in India. There was a man from the lowest class called the, "Untouchables." When asked the question as to why the "Untouchables" did not have any success in bettering themselves and rising out poverty, he replied that it was the the people in the caste directly above them that were the reason. He explained that caste in the next level up were the ones that fought the changes in society that would benefit the "Untouchables" and that they were the one's that vigorously oppossed any changes that would better those at the bottom. He said that they did that because they were afraid of losing their position in society if everything became equal then the "Untouchables" would have entered the market and competed for the same jobs. He said that the members of the richest caste were actually very sympathetic and contributed a lot to ease their suffering because they had no fear that the "Untouchables" would ever be in direct competition with them.

I can't help wonder if the same concept is the driving force behind the opposition to healthcare reform in the U.S. today. Is this a socio-economic class issue? Do middle-class Americans oppose healthcare changes that would benefit the poorer members of society because they don't feel any obligation to the lower class, aka working class?